PARLIAMENTARY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 7925, 30 July 1886, Page 5

PARLIAMENTARY.

[Per Press Association.] LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Thursday, July 28. - The Wellington-Manawatu Railway Company’s Additional Capital Bill ; was committed, the preamble being slightly amended. The Bill was reported with amendments, read a third time, and passed. The adjourned debate on the question of the appointment of managers to act on the second free conference with the managers of the House of Representatives, relative to the diagreements as to a certain amendment in Clause 88 of the Local Bodies Loan Bill, was resumed by The Hon H. H. Lahmann, who expressed the hope that the Government managers on the first conference would not act again. The Hon J. A. R. Menzies’ amendment, that the question he now pat, went to a division: Ayes, 15 ; Noes, 20. The Gold Duties Eeduction Act Bill was received from the House of Representatives. On the motion for the first reading of the Bill, The Hon J. N. Wilson asked the ruling of the Speaker as to whether a Bill which had been rejected could be brought up again the same session. , The Hon P. Buckley pointed out that the Bill referred to emanated from the House, and this therefore did not interfere with the Standing Orders of the Council. The Speaker intimated hia intention of giving his ruling on the points next day. The Bill was read a first time. Some important amendments in the Defence Bill, proposed by the Governor, were agreed to. The Hon P. Buckley moved —“ That certain amendments in the Coal Mines Bill, made by the Council and disagreed with by the House, be not insisted upon.” Carried. The Council agreed with an amendment in the Mining Bill proposed by the Governor. The Native Land Administration Bill, and the Native Land Court Bill were recommitted, with a view to making some amendments. These were agreed to, and the third reading of the Bills made orders for the following day. The adjourned debate on the motion for the second reading of the Settled Land Bill was resumed by The Hon M. Holmes, who objected to the Bill chiefly on the ground that it was not required, and was only designed to meet the requirements of special cases. The Hon sir F. Whitaker replied, and the motion for the second reading was agreed to. The Bill was ordered to be committed on Monday next. The Government Loans to Local Bodies Bill was further considered in Committee. On Clause 36, dealing with how funds shall be provided by the Colonial Treasurer, it was proposed that the latter part of the clause be struck out. The question went to a division: Ayes, 17; Noes, 16. The clause was retained, the BUI as amended reported, and the third reading made an order for the following day. The Council adjourned at 5. The Council resumed at 7.30. The Counties Bill was re-committed with a view to consider certain amendments. The Bill was reported with'amendments, and the third reading made an order for next sittings. The First Offenders Probation BiU was further considered in Committee. On the motion of the Hon J. N. Wilson, the following new clause was agreed to: — “ A Court of summary jurisdiction, after hearing the evidence, may discharge such person without sentencing him, or the Superior Court, at any stage of the trial of such person, may direct him to be discharged either before or after the verdict, and such discharge shall have all the effect of the acquittal of the accused in respect of the offence for which he was committed for trial, held to bail, or indicted.” The new clauses were agreed to, and the Bill, with amendments, reported. The Sheep Act Amendment Bill was committed, and subsequently reported with amendments. The Civil Service Reform Bill was considered in,Committee, a discussion ensuing on Clause 15, progress being reported on it, and leave given to sit again. The Mortgage Debentures Act Amendment Bill, and the Port Chalmers Fire Brigade Site Bill were read a second time. The Waimatc Racecourse Trustees Empowering Bill was committed and progress reported. The Auckland Harbour Board Loan BUI, the City of Christchurch Municipal Offices Bill, and the Oamaru Harbour Board Loan Bill, were read a second time. The CouncU adjourned at 11 p.m. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. The following is the continuation of Wednesday’s sitting Mr O’Callaohan complained that the southern portion of the Colony had received scant justice, and moved to report progress. After some discussion. The Hon Sir J. Vogel said Government proposed to leave the question of appropriation of amounts struck off for future consideration. He wished to have time to consult with his colleagues, as two items had been deleted. * He would consent to <£44,000 being taken off the vote tor rolling stock, &c. The motion for reporting progress was lost on the voices. The Hon Sir J. Vogel hoped Mr Kerr would not press his amendment to reduce the Otago Central vote. Mr Gore said he was inclined to support Mr Kerr, as the reduction of the item would bring the neglect of this line to a climax, and force the people to give expression to their opinion of the natter. Mr Kerr withdrew his amendment, but moved to strike out the item, EdendaleFortrose, .£28,000. Mr Hatch supported this, because the line was not wanted by the people of the district, who preferred the Seaward Bush Railway. The Hon Sir R. Stout said the Portrose people had no concern in the line, which ended sixteen miles from them. The money already spent would be wasted unless firther provision was made for carrying the line through the tunnel to the point where it joined the main road. Mr Holmes moved—“ That the Chairman leave the chair,” on the ground that the schedule had got into an unsatisfactory state. Nelson and Canterbury were totally neglected. After discussion, the motion was- withdrawn. Mr Pearson moved to strike out Riversdaie to Switzers, £20,000. Mr Cowan defended the line, as opening up one of the best districts in the Colony. Item retained by 33 to 2S. Mr Kerr’s amendment was also lost by 38 to 19, Mr Pearson asked if Government would entertain the idea of making a railway between Christchurch and Sumner, which would pay better than many others. A long discussion took place on the item £150,000, addition to opened lines, the Nelson members especially dwelling on the claims of their districts to consideration at the hands of the Government. The item £370,000 for permanent way, rolling stock, &c., was reduced to £326,000.

The Hon Sir J. Vogel then moved to report progress. The House rose at 3.45 a.m. yesterday. Thursday, July 29. AFTERNOON SITTING. The House met at 2.80. QUESTION. Mr Hobbs asked the Government whether it is true that, according to the last census returns, the area of cultivated land owned by tbe Maoris north of Auckland does not exceed half-an-acre per head; also, is it true that the Government intend to allow the Maoris to select land in the North under the new special settlement regulations. The Hon J. Ballance replied in the affirmative. He said he was anxious that the Maoris should select land under those regulations. PRIVILEGE. Mr Bevan called attention to a question of privilege in reference to last night’s proceedings in Committee on the Loan Bill at an early hour in the morning, when the railway connected with a portion of his own district was under discussion. He was assailed by Mr Fergus, the member for Wakatipu, with some very coarse remarks, to the effect that the Hokitika-Grey mouth railway was a swindle, accompanied with some coarse adjectives and obscene epithets, which he would not repeat to the House. He thought it best to bring the matter before Mr Speaker, as whatever the relations of the members were, he thought they should respect each other as gentlemen. The Speaker said the proper course to pursue was to bring the matter under the notice of the Chairman of the Committee, who would then have reported to the Speaker. However, he should like to hear Mr Fergus’explanation. Mr Fergus said that he happened to be conversing with the member for Franklin North about a certain railway inaconfifidential manner, and he had no idea that Mr Bevan was listening to their conversation. He had characterised the line in question as a political fraud, and said that he did not believe in it. Mr Bevan then interjected some remarks, upon which he (Mr Fergus) might possibly have told him to hold his tongue, or something to that effect. Had Mr Bevan asked him to apologise at the time, he should have certainly done so, as he had no intention of giving offence to the hon gentleman. He desired now to tender him a full apology: The Speaker said Mr Fergus had met the charge like a gentleman, and he thought it was not necessary to proceed farther with the matter. Mr Bevan freely accepted the apology. He said he should have asked for an apology the previous night were it not that the member/ for Wakatipu was in such a state of excitement that he did not like to approach him. The matter then dropped. COMMITTALS. The Deceased Persons’ Estates Duties Act Amendment Bill, and the Land Administration Act Extension Bill were committed and passed without amendment. IN COMMITTEE. The House went into Committee on the Public Bodies’ Leasehold Bill. A lengthy discussion ensued on Clause 10, providing that the surrender of existing leases may be accepted and new leases granted. , The clause passed without alteration, by 43 to 11. ■ The remaining clauses were passed with slight amendments. The Harbours Act Amendment Bill passed with verbal amendments. Several new clauses were added, which elicited a lengthy discussion. The House rose at 5.30 p.m. EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7,80.. The Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Bill, which had been postponed for the consideration of the new clauses, was further discussed in Committee. There was a long argument over Clause 2b, providing for representation on District Boards to he proportioned to the amonnt of contributions thereto by the several contributories. Messrs Walker, M'Millan, W. F. Buckland, and other members, desired the limitation of three representatives for Boroughs and five for Counties. The Hon Sir R. Stout said that he would agree to a maximum of four for any local body. Dr Newman said that this was subjecting the Boroughs, with their large population and contributions, to the country districts. Mr Peacock pointed out that if the maximum were fixed at four, it did not follow that every local body would be entitled to that number. He and other Borough representatives denied that they had any wish to raise strife between town and country, as alleged by some of tbe speakers. The maximum was eventually fixed at four. Mr Walker then moved to .add, “ with the exception of Boroughs, in which three shall be the maximum.” The Premier said that this would only fairly apply to Canterbury, but was unjust to the other districts. Dunedin, for instance, hod more than three times the rateable value or population of any County. Mr Buckland said around Auckland there were a number of small Boroughs, each of which would be represented, and so swamp the County. The Hon Sir R. Stout said he would agree to group these small Boroughs for the purpose of the Act. This compromise was accepted, and Mr Walker’s amendment withdrawn. Mr Macabthur moved an addition to the clause in the direction of adjusting representation on the United Board, on the principle laid down regarding District Boards. Agreed to. Clause Ba, directing Boards to collect contributions on a uniform scale, was objected to by Messrs Buchanan, Pearson and others, who drew the attention of country members particularly to it. Mr Pearson said be bad a clause to move in its place, providing for differential contributions. He read it, remarking parenthetically, that he did not quite understand it, as it was drawn up by a lawyer. He asked tbe Premier if the Government intended to take any notice of tbe resolution he carried the other night. If the present system were continued it would result in the Act breaking down. The Hon Sir R. Stout asked the country members how they would like it if the Borough members got tbe upper band, and made the country districts pay twice as much as towns. Mr Pearson said that in Canterbury the country had to support the towns ; £IB,OOO had been spent on the poor of Sydenham, and Christchurch was rapidly becoming pauperised. Mr Taylor denied that such was the case. An attempt was made to strike out of the clause the words “preventing imposition of differential rates,” but it was negatived by 35 to 20. The motion that the Chairman leave the chair was also negatived after a long discussion, and the clause carried intact by 33 to 20. In Clause 14, election of trustees of separate institutions, the clause was amended so as to provide that if voluntary contributors contribute for the maintenance of an institution one-sixth, and less than one-third, they shall elect three trustees; if one-third, and less than onehalf, five trustees; if more than half, and less than the total amount, they shall elect six trustees. The Hon Sir R. Stout asked those members who had amendments on the

Paper referring te the dissolution -of certain districts, to postpone them for the present. Agreed to. : : The Hon Sir R. Stout moved to report progress. Agreed to. BILLS PASSED. The Administration Act Extension BUI, the Public Bodies’ Leaseholds Bill, and the Harbours Act Amendment Bill were read a third time and passed. ORDER OF BUSINESS. The Hon Sir R. Stout moved—“ That the Orders of the Day be postponed in order that the Dog Registration Act be read a third time.” Mr Euckland objected to the motion. He said it was very unfair to bring on this Bill in a thin House, when' many members had gone away, not thinking it would be brought on. He also questioned whether it was competent for tbe Premier to make this motion, as Thursday had been set apart for the Government business. The Hon Sir R. Stout said he should ask leave to withdraw his motion, but he regretted that the hon member in charge of the Bill had been refused this courtesy. The House rose at 12.5 a.m. , SYNOPSIS. In Committee. —Hospitals and Charitable Aid. Passed. —Administration Act Extension, Harbours Act Amendment, Public Bodies’ Leaseholds Bill. Miscellaneous, —A question of privilege and the proposed third reading of the Dog Registration Act discussed.